Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR - now this one is weird because it's a... FX lens... yep, full frame! Previous rumors indicated a 28-300mm zoom, to compete directly with Canon, but it seems that Nikon decided to do this one differently (Nikon already has a 18-200mm lens for DX). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this will be the first full frame 18-200mm lens in the world.

Future plans for a new set of lenses for the upcoming Nikon EVIL system should also be announced. Expected is a general zoom lens (maybe something in the range of 18-55) and a pancake lens (probably 35mm f/1.8). Note that those lenses will not be available for some time and the final production version may vary from the initial prototypes.

I do expect those lenses to be release between now and Photokina (September, 2010), not sure if they will come all together or in two separate announcements.

The above list was compiled over time from various tips, mainly from Asian forums and some small details could be wrong or lost in translation. I am also not sure if this is the complete list of lenses to be released prior to Photokina. The initial rumor was that Nikon will release 8 new lenses in 2010. So far they have released 3 (16-35mm f/4, 24mm f/1.4 and 200-400 f/4 VRII) and now we will have four more, which leave us with potentially one more lens announcement towards the end of the year. As previously reported the 35mm f/1.4 seems to be postponed till 2011.

first fiend troll check this site within seconds of anything being posted! can’t wait for them to drop the evil lens lineup.

David Hasselblaff

It is about time Nippon Kōgaku Kōgyō Kabushikigaisha does something about the lens lineup. They have been focusing on the cameras way too much. I wouldn’t mind at least twice as long update cycles for the DSLRs if they could therefore work on some of the long overdue lenses. Personally I’d love to see an AF-S 200mm f/4 Micro VR and an AF-S 800mm VR.

LGO

Looks like I will have to wait till next year for the 135mm f/2.0 AF-S VR. 🙁

Even 70-300 VR is not so great at 300mm on DX, wide open.
55-300 DX VR must be a joke, just like 18-200 FX.

By the way, the new 85 f/3.5 DX micro is selling well?
I think a AF-S 85mm f/1.8 DX would be much interesting.

Also a DX 50-150mm f/2.8 would be much interesting than 55-300mm.

Me tooo

Ditto on 50-150mm DX VRII N. It would be awesome if Nikon brought that one out. I’d buy one in a heartbeat!

Right now it’s either the 70-200mm or Sigma garbage.

Ben

The Sigma 50-150 is actually a great lens. And probably one of the most fun to shoot with due to the DC and huge focus ring (no need to flip the stupid manual focus switch). Nikon would do well to come out with their own version though. It basically gives DX users a 70-200 (75-225) for half the price and half the weight. It’s really a no brainer.

Oi

Sounds good but we need f2.0 to be equivalent to f2.8 on FX.
When can we get serious DX lenses?

Bwyan

@Oi:
Pardon my ignorance but could you elaborate on the “need f2.0 to be equivalent to f2.8 on FX.” I was unaware that the cropfactor fiddled with the f-values as well?

@Bwyan:
Ol means that with DX you get more DOF than with FX, which means that if you want as little DOF with DX as with FX you will need to open up your aperture 1 stop more.
If you want to get the same amount of DOF isolation with your 50-150 on DX as with the 70-200@f/2.8 on FX you will need a 50-150mm f/2 lens.

Cheers!
FreddyH

bwyan

Thanx Freddy!
Have to admit I hadn’t dwelled much around the DOF/f-value aspect of it. Damn, this just means that DX really messes things up a bit! Grrr…

Singapore

You don’t say Sigma garbage again if you’d have shot with this lens. The 50-150 HSM II is an absolute favorite.

85mm DX doesn’t make sense. Unless it is a macro lens you gain nothing by making it DX (and the macro primarily gains working distance at full aperture).

John

I agree. 50-150mm f/2.8 would be in the sweet spot for me too.

Twoomy

Awesome, well if true, now they will have an entire canon of mainstream f/4 “walkaround” lenses, in addition to a crazy walk-around 18-200mm lens. (The 18-200 FX is hard to believe.) These are exactly the lenses that they need in order to make FX more mainstream, so I’m surprised and disappointed if we don’t see a new D700’ish FX camera (with movie mode) this year.

Anonymous

If there’s an 18-200 FX than there must be a consumer FX body in the pipeline.

Other than that: Yay, more thing I want and cant afford.

Thoughts on a non-vr 85 1.4 price? No VR saves what- $100 off retail?

LGO

Nikon will need to release a 70-200mm f/4.0G VR to match Canon’s f4 series of zoom lens.

Re 18-200mm FX lens, this could indeed a harbinger for a lower-cost /consumer-class FX body. If it is small as a D90 or even as the D5000 (no BIM) with the performance of the current D700, this would be a good match for a 35mm f/2.0 (my 24mm f/1.4G would be a bit over-sized for this body). Yes!

Denko

If the Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR is a reality then I too agree there must be an FX camera in the pipeline for the mid-range. Perfect for a bundled lens too. Mid-range bundle type.

Now if Nikon went FX on the D7000 (D90 replacement) I’ll be all over it like a smarty on a fat kid.

Denko

DOH! “Like A Fat Kid On A Smartie” is the phrase.

PHB

Or they figured out the math to make the DX lens work at the wide end.

I can’t remember offhand, but the 18-200 certainly works on FX for much of the range (the 10-24 covers the FX frame at 14mm).

It is a spectacular achievement if true. But… not necessarily proof that a consumer D700 is round the corner.

At B&H now the D90 is $850, D300s $1500, D700 $2400

The price difference between the D90 and the D300s is $650 and the difference between the D300s and D700 is $900. And that is with the D300 having just gone up a couple of hundred dollars on the D300.

So the way I see it, the magnesium body is adding $500 to the price, while the FX sensor adds $1000 over the DX. That is at the retail level, I would expect the manufacturing cost differences to be more like $200 and $500.

I do not see a major market for a plastic bodied D700 costing $2000. And I don’t think many others would. So the new cheaper FX lenses are good, but what is really key is whether Nikon can get the cost of the sensor down to a point where they can cut $500 off the price of the D700. I can totally see there being a big market for a magnesium bodied D700 for $2000.

So my bet would be no new FX DSLR this year but a price cut on the D700 and a shift of production to the Thai plant.

Oi

I’d go for a plastic FX if it’s lighter

Anonymous

18-200 FX just doesn’t make sense. 18mm is an extreme wideangle in Full Frame. If this lens is true it must be full of aberrations.

because there is a very good chance that this lens will be released – see my latest post 🙂

Rafael

if the 18-200 is an FX lens , definitely a Lemon, this is the kind of lens I see Sigma or Vivitar making, not Nikon.

LGO

I think that there is indeed a mistake. This 18-200mm FX is most likely a 24-200mm FX lens.

Anonymous

in the 1800’s talk of the existence of a digital camera could be considered a “mistake”.

Anonymous

Not even Sigma nor Vivitar. Maybe Soligor or ACME.

PHB

The Nikon 10-24 lens is actually not too bad as 14mm.

But thats not really the test is it? If someone is going to pay the $900 extra that the D700 costs over the D300s ($1550 over the D90), they want to get results that are better as a result.

I can see a number of ways this lens could make sense. The existing 18-200DX probably does a passable job in the 24-200 range already. A slight rejiggering to allow it to be used on FX as well would make it an ideal lens to go with a D300s whose owner wants to be able to swap to an FX body.

camaman

I really like the idea of FX 18-200 lens! Took them long enough!
I guess this just one more plus for going Nikon in hunt for great low light performance!

The new 55-300 DX also sounds very cool! But I can’t help and cry that it is not FX compatible! 🙁

LGO

The 70-300mm VR not close enough?

Anonymous

you can put dx lens onto fx body.

Anonymous

Can you cite your sources?

Mike

That’s funny… Someone named annonymous wants the source of a rumour based website. Monday morning irony at it’s finest!

LGO

🙂

Luke

Would the Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR FX gesture towards this new D90?

pete

18-200 on fx will just not happen. physically impossible to make that lens without severe optical issues. put a 0% on that rumour. the rest look pretty predictable.

Anonymous

I agree… 18 mm is very wide on such stretched ultra zoom for FX and can’t be easily squeezed in within a limited size of package.

I do also find it weird a FF 18-200 lens…. “vigneting” must be its second name and “optical aberration” its surname. Hope I’m wrong with this!!.
I’m dreaming for a 70-200 f/4 VR FX… well I better keep dreaming!!.

Canon Fangirly

You know, the 70-200/2.8 can do f/4 as well.

nobody

Yep, but it can’t reduce its weight to 700g 🙂

Victor Hassleblood

Yes and it does shrink, when stopped down too. This 2.8 is simply amazing.

And seriously, if you want a cheaper 70-200VR, just buy the old one. Or any of the other great lenses that Nikon makes. I prefer Nikon making one damn sharp 70-200VR at 2.8 and a 70-300/3.5-5.6 for everyone else. The 70-300 is still quite good.

The way Canon does it, they have way too much overlap (70-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, 70-200/4, 70-200/4IS) and in the end their 70-200/2.8IS isn’t as good. Nikon done right by concentrating on making less models and making them higher quality.

I know it can do f/4 as well but it can’t make my backpack lighter if I’m carrying also the big glass when trekking for long hours. When film was the only option I used a lot the 80-200 f/4 manual lens and it was (still have it) an ideal lens for nature, wildlife and landscape.

Nikoniastu

The Audi RS8 can also do 60 mph but that’s not a reason why not to buy an Audi A3 if you don’t want to fly at 195 mph…. You Know!!

Anon

Middle name – barrel distortion

JorPet

It might just be called the “Fun House” lens. Depending on the focal length chosen, you get the short squat image or the elongated image. :-p

cyron

WOW! A 24-120mm/f4 that is the lens i need. Then i could sell my DX lineup. I hope the F4(FX) will be small enough and the optics is better than the old 24-120mm. 18-200mm FX would be a dream, but i think it is optically impossible.?!?!

If they do make it, it will a huge amount of distortion at the 18mm end.

Del-Uks

Sounds more and more like the D90 replacement will be… FX!!!

;-p

Greg Webb

I’m coming round to the same view – the 70/80/90 series has always shadowed the 100/200/300 series by half a generation or so, but with the D300s there’d be no real point in upgrding to the D90 to a D90s. They might disappoint us and go that way, but given they’ve said before that FX would reach consumer bodies then a D5000 as cut-down D300 and D91 (or whatever) as a cut-down D700 could start making a lot of sense as a lineup.

(Though I’m still scared about an 18-200 FX – either they’ve found something incredibly revolutionary or that’ll be a nasty lens.)

Oh dear

What about the expected super duper zoom 100-500 or 80-400?

Singapore

That’s also what I first thought.

Matthias

I got an information from a nikon retailer in Austria that the 85mm 1.4 will be released at photokina 2010!

Well, used the 85 1.4 is around 1,000 dollars, and $1,500 new. I’d anticipate that if it’s got VR, you can add around another one thousand to the price, otherwise, perhaps another $500.

Still, we’ll have to wait and see.

I hope it keeps the same top-knotch hardware as the current 85mm 1.4 The housings on the 85 1.4, the 135, et cetera, just feel great. I hope the replacements have similar ‘built like a brick privy’ construction.

PHB

BH has the imported version at $1000 and the USA version at $1200. The canon f/1.2 is $2000.

I would say $1500 as an absolute maximum (with VR). The only upgrade here really is the AFS. And that is essential to work with future motorless bodies. We are not expecting a massively improved optical package. It is a prime and the old one was superlative.

Can’t say I am at all disappointed to see the 35mm f/1.4 pushed into next year.

Rafael

around to $ 2,000 to $ 2,500 I think too.. wich sucks, cause now I will only buy one Nikon thing, but this is the one!

Do you need an f/1.4 with VR? Shooting in pitch black? Hmmmm. I’m actually mixed on the idea of VR with this lens because I’m sure at 85mm you can properly make use of it and it has to be said that the latest incarnations of VR from Nikon have been VERY effective indeed. I guess if there is a lens that needs it, it is around that sort of focal length so be prepared to see it, and have to pay for it is my guess….

Alex

If there is no VR it should definitely be less than the 24 1.4, If it has VR then take the price without the VR and add about another 200 I’m guessing. So right now I’m guessing around 1500ish.

18mm f/3.5 FX is a fairly large front optic, and pushed somewhat forward in order to provide telecentric light to the sensor. Doesn’t seem right to me. An 18-200mm equivalent for FX sounds correct to me (28-300mm) and corresponds more to what I heard.

Snapshooter

Lies! All Lies!

Nikon surely must have invented a pliable front element which flattens its self out at the tele end.

Cmon 18-200 FX !!!

Astrophotographer

I agree it’s unlikely. Even it Nikon can design such a lens at an 18-200 FX the IQ wouldn’t be good enough for FX shooters. I expect Nikon knows FX users want better IQ, it’s the main advantage of FX.

Chai

Affordable FX ;p

Bart

Do we really need 55-300VR? 55-200VR and 70-300VR are both great and not expensive. I’m waiting for a fast and light wide DX prime…

Anonymous

A fast DX prime is exactly what I’d like to see. AF-S 200mm f/2.8G VR DX anyone? Something a bit smaller and lighter than 180mm f/2.8 FX lens would be just the ticket for DX shooters.

PHB

A DX telephoto prime would cost exactly the same as an FX version. DX is only cheaper at the wide end. And that is because a 35mm f/1.8 DX is essentially a modified 50mm f/1.8 FX.

Even a 20mm f/2 is going to be pretty large and pricey. As large and pricey as a 35mm f/2 FX.

Bart

Yes, I know. 16mm f/2.8 DX would be enough wide, fast and light for me and it shouldn’t be too expensive.

C

Thanks NR for your tips.

All lenses are very sensible and reasonable except 18-200 FX. I think it is optically non-feasible. I must say the rating of this lens for me is 0%, or the people who invented this must get a Noble Prize.

You know 18mm in FX is ultrawide, there is no FX lens (Nikon and also Canon) can breakthrough the wide angle beyond 24mm for a normal zoom lens. Nikon try very hard to put 28-70 to 24-70, Canon also try very hard to put 24-70 to 24-105 (with f/4).

For comparison, the lens nearest so-called 18-200 FX is 24-120. I don’t think Nikon can suddenly produce a hefty 18-200 FX having considered the poor PQ of 24-120 and its not-light weight and size. In term of PQ and distortion, 24-120 is infamous. The more zoom range, the worse PQ. I can’t imagine how poor the PQ and distortion would be if 18-200 FX is produced. In addition, 24-120 is not a light and small lens. If it is 18-200 FX I can’t imagine how big the lens would be. I think it could be at least 3-4 times of the current 24-120 so it could make up >2kg and the size is a huge problem, too. Therefore, for me, the 18-200 FX, IMO, is 0%.

Soc#PL

18-200 FX is impossible to make 🙂
55-300mm… nice 🙂 Pentax has got lens like that
24-120mm… huh hope the price won’t kill me
85mm 1.4- price will kill me 🙂
“The initial rumor was that Nikon will release 8 new lenses in 2010. So far they have released 3 (16-35mm f/4, 24mm f/1.4 and 200-400 f/4 VRII) and now we will have four more, which leave us with potentially one more lens announcement towards the end of the year”
3+4=7…
^^ gays…

yes, my math is right: 3 lenses already announced + 4 more form this post. That leaves us with one more unknown lens for 2010

Soc#PL

never mind xD but for what did You said that rumor says that Nikon will relese 8 lenses 😀 should been give 5th as a rumor 🙂 for example 70-200 f4
then You would have a rumor about 8lenses, not 7… xD
nvm maybe im just idiot 😀

Evangelist

I’m thinking that last lens could possibly be 120-300 f/4.

Then they would have:

Pro:
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

Prosumer:
16-35 4
24-120 4
120-300 4

An FX 18-200, IF POSSIBLE, would probably completely obsolete the DX version (except for size) and I think would be intended as a replacement for the DX one as well.

I know, I’m waiting for that 35/1.4 the most. but I guess the 85/1.4 is a close second on my list.

JJJ

Much needed lens for the Nikon wedding photographer crowd. Long overdue.

Eric Pepin

I want a new 35 ! but i will probably get the Zeiss 32 f2, no faster then nikons current 35 but a hell of a lot better build and supposedly sharper.

SNRatio

IF the FX 18-200 is for real, don’t expect too much of the corners wide open…
But, is is of course not impossible, doesn’t even have to be huge, because of the modest tele aperture.

If it’s real, this is a video lens, I think – the wide angle gives a flexibility never seen before, and at 1080×1920, the image is cropped at about r=20.6mm, so the worst extreme corner is dropped from video. Remember also that it is only 3.5 mm up in r from the DX corner to FX border, so with the rather decent corner performance Nikon has achieved on the 18-200 DX Mk II, they might no have to change things so drastically to get something that produces great-looking videos.

Also, most people (casual users) would use this from 21mm up most of the time, where it could actually have very nice performance. And the idiots who buy this for their wide angle zoom won’t be able to tell the difference :).

It could also be seen as a move against Canon. With their smaller register distance and wider mount, they have, traditionally, had more problems with their wide angles, and Canon may have to work really hard even to match this offer, let alone beat it outright. And of course, it doubles as a walkaround zoom on DX. It will be interesting to compare this beast with the 16-85 on DX.

If the name for the 85mm is correct, there is no ED glass in it, which fits with the “35/1.4” picture shown here a while ago, which looked more like an 85mm.

The 24-120/4 will get a LOT of use. It will be interesting to compare with the 24-70/2.8 AF-S. Now, if they can get out a 70-200/4 (could well be 70-280/4 for me!) next year, they get a relly decent lineup.

shivaswrath

I’m finding the 18-200 FX hard to believe, won’t the front element be HUGE?! But hey, more power, would love to have a walk around on a FX. . .which also means, since 3/4 are FX releases, an FX body should be coming out .. . .whoooop!

SteMA

I like the idea of the 55-300vr! I have the 70-300, but the 70mm is sometimes too long, and it’s slow to switch.. I have a d90 + 18-105vr + 70-300vr + 35/1.8, but if the latest rumors are true, I might switch the body and the tele to d3100 + 55-300

The invisible Man

Why more lenses that Nikon already have ?
Tons of useless zooms f/3.5-5.6 f/4.5-8 etc…..there is plenty of thoses available.
What we need is real good nice primes !
The 300mm AF-S f/4 is 10 years old, would it cost billions $ to add vibrations reduction on it ? The optic is great, just need VR and G mount.
Same for the 180mm f/2.8, I bought mine 20 years ago ! Again, a great ED lens that only need an upgrade !
And what a bout a 18mm f/2.8 AF-S ED N ?
If Nikon don’t care about what professionals need we will all switch for Canon, I love Nikon because it make the best cameras but wakeup, we need GOOD LENSES.
I just got mail from Nikon (I send to repair my BRAND NEW 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S 2 weeks ago); “MAJOR PARTS REPLACED” $1800 for a lens that need repair after few weeks……

Anonymous

If it is brand new, you should not complain about the price since it is covered by the warranty. Anywayn, bad luck 🙁

Iceman

IV Man…I couldn’t agree more but the unfortunately I think the market volume speaks louder. Selling a boatload of kit lenses brings in more revenue than a crate of nice primes. I have no need for a kit lens but I understand why they would produce them ahead of the pro-primes…much to my dismay.

85mm f/1.4 I’m coming. Don’t care much about VR but I hope there are no more purple fringing issues. I’m expecting from expensive prime lenses that I won’t need any software lens correction tools. But after seeing the 24mm at f/1.4 I think Nikon won’t get the purple fringes away 🙁

Eric Pepin

honestly, if the new lens doesent have the VR, just get the old 85. AF is already quick on it, very quick with a pro body D300 and up and if you arent a pro with a pro body then most likely you dont need a 85 1.4.

i_want_a_D900

Looking at how bad the distortion of the 16-35 f/4 VR at 16mm is – something I think is rather not acceptable – 18-200FX would probably behave like a full fisheye at 18mm. I really want to believe in it tho.

FX sensor in a D90 ish body is highly feasible. Put a D700 (or better yet 20+ MP ) sensor in it and add 1080p video, sell it for $1999 and it would be selling like hot cakes. For a lot of people what sells the D700 isn’t the freaking heavy pro body, but much rather the AF, DR, color and high iso.

This might be the surprise that Nikon has been hinting us for?

Edward RNLMC retired

Oke thanks but where or when the 100-500 vr super duper zoom please or i have to go for 300 f2:8 vr2 +tc s

Eric Pepin

not really……… you could get a 300 f4 woith a TC or two. A 300 f2.8 is not even in the same realm as a 100-500 variable apperture zoom.

Dweeb

Nothing that interests me. How about a super wide prime that doesn’t distort like hell and cost 2000 bucks? Or a 300 f4 VRII? And then there’s the people waiting for the 80-400 update …

I would like to see nikon reintroduce the cheap AF-s 24-85 3.5-4.5 with VR this time (or 24-85 2.8-4 Vr AF-s) along with new 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 1.8 AF-s and 18-35 3.5-4.5
but by introducing high demand expensive lens 1st they recover more R&D from there N-coating. and early adopters of FX.
The 300mm f4 and 80-400 are truly lower demand expensive products.
and by the looks of it N-coating is going to finds its way into every nikon lens at some point just as ED did.

dipshyte

Enough with the zooms already. OK a 24-120 N VR upgrade would be nice.

… and more than$12,000 lighter in your wallet. Of course if you’re a pro you can afford them 😉

Soc#PL

nothing more needed than 17-40 f4 Canon lens with nikon mount… <3

Blaster

There is a Nikkor 16-35/4 VR you know? 🙂

Eric Pepin

that would probably cost from 10 grand on the low end to 16ish grand on the high end.

gsg009

oh,good news!! but where is the AF-S 35 F1.4?

if there is a d90 body with FX CMOS coming ,i will thank nikon again.

Rafael

first, Im going to get an extra job or something but Im getting that 85mm f1.4 AFS,
then Im going to sell some old Nikon stuff and get that 24-120 f4 , and finaly Im going to get a divorce , and a good settlement to buy the new D700x or D800! oh yeah baby!

1 : thanks to digital it’s now very easy to crop pictures.
2 : we get fantastic results at 800 ISO (FX).
3 : f/1.4, high ISO and VR make it easy to shoot in very low light with no flash.
4: easy to get rid of the yellow-red-green artifitial light using manual white balance.
5: much brighter viewfinder, better for focusing (auto & manual).
6: simpler disign, less moving parts mean less repairs and no “dust pump zoom”.

Anonymous

Mmh… maybe DOF? 😮

Iceman

Welcome to my world…thank you very much.

Eric Pepin

1. not really, use longer primes and the problem goes away though. Im geting into photography and dont plan to use anything longer then the 135 f2.0 so im still with ya.

2. good results with DX too compared to film so yes

3. yes again, although VR for many primes is not needed.

4. you can edit your white balance with zooms too so i dont see the point here

5. even pro body view finders are optimized for 2.8 zooms. on my cheaper D90 i cant tell the difference when stopping down till F3.5 ish , and this is on a 1.4 lens. If you get a new screen or katz eye then yes though.

6.yes again although pro zooms are hardly prone to failure, enough photojournalists have proven that.

im with you though, primes for life, i want a 21,35,50,85,135,180 set up, and id just carry two max three with me depending on location.

Wasn’t high on the priority list (according to both T. Hogan & NR’s poll #s), unfortunately. So can see where Nikon would let that one slide when push came to shove.

Not saying that I’m against it, though. Have the DC 2.0, but wouldn’t mind an AF-S update.

Jay

WOW nikon is seriously going to hit canon in the nutz soon lol.

nobody

One more sceptic regarding the 18-200 FX. Could very well be a 18-200 FX equivalent, so 28-300. Which would indeed be a good indication for a lower priced FX camera being in the pipeline.

Ben

I think Nikon might possibly release a lower end FX camera with great video. And keep the D700 replacement a video free “for photographers only” camera and not risk adding video to what many consider to be a perfect wedding camera.

As much as I could care less about whether or not video should be in a camera body, I doubt that Nikon would leave the function out (especially with people screaming about a mkII equivalent on the Nikon side). Wedding photographers’ll just have to learn to ignore that button 😛 (the ones that don’t use the feature, that is)

Soc#PL

i would like to see 85mm 1.8 AF-s 🙂 with price like the old one 🙂 it can be even like 35mm 1.8, if it would work on FX like 35mm DX… 🙂 it can be even plastic-fantastic 🙂 but i want another such sharp and cheap lens 😀

AlexV

Hope to see a 300 f/4 replacement with a new 80-400mm, can’t believe that these good sellers don’t have a better place in the Nikon’s list for an update, hard to understand the thinking in this corporation. I’m afraid to have waiting until a D400 release for seeing these lenses or longer …

jon

85 1.4VR – a dream lens for me. Probably couldn’t afford it initially, but would eventually buy. 24-120 VR – I’d use that on my film cam F-100 as I don’t yet have an FX cam. Now if Nikon could work on getting a 50 1.2 and an AFS 80-400VR – I’d buy those two for sure.